Lawsuit Challenges Gay Adoption, Foster Parenting Ban
Last updated Tuesday, December 30, 2008 6:37 PM CST in News
By Rob Moritz
THE MORNING NEWS
LITTLE ROCK -- Opponents of a new state law banning unmarried couples living together from adopting or serving as foster parents filed a lawsuit Tuesday asking a judge to strike down the measure.
The lawsuit filed in Pulaski County Circuit Court argues the law violates federal and state constitutional rights to equal treatment and due process.
Twenty-nine adults and children are plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging Initiated Act 1, which Arkansas voters overwhelmingly approved in the November general election and goes into effect Thursday.
"We are good parents and more than capable of deciding who we should trust to care for our children, without the state's assistance," Act 1 opponent Meredith Scroggin of Little Rock said during a news conference at the state Capitol.
Scroggin said she and her husband, Benny, had designated in their will the custody and adoption rights of their two children to her cousin, who is gay and has a live-in partner.
"It is our parental right to decide what is in the best interest of our children and Act 1 infringes upon this right," Meredith Scroggin said.
Marie-Bernarde Miller of Little Rock, an attorney representing the Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said Act 1 is a "blanket exclusion of a whole class of potentially qualified foster and adoptive parents, both gay and heterosexual ... including even those who are kin to the children."
"Act 1 violates the state's legal duty to place the best interest of children before all else," Miller said. "It disregards the best interest of children and prevents the placement in willing, eligible and loving foster or adoption homes."
The lawsuit names as defendants the state, Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, the state Department of Human Services and its director, and the Child Welfare Agency Review Board and its chairman.
The lawsuit was assigned to Circuit Judge Timothy Fox, who in 2004 struck down a state regulation that banned gays from the state foster care program. In that case, Fox ruled the state Child Welfare Agency Review Board overstepped authority granted by the Legislature in considering morality among criteria for prospective foster parents.
The state Supreme Court affirmed the ruling.
Jerry Cox, the director of the conservative Family Council, which spearheaded a drive to put the initiated act on the November ballot, said the group expected a lawsuit.
"That's why we took extreme care in crafting the language in such a way that it could stand up against any legal challenge," Cox said.
While the group made no secret its primary goal was to block gay couples from adopting or fostering children, Cox said the law will affect heterosexuals and homosexuals equally.
"We are confident this lawsuit will fail and Act 1 will remain on the books," Cox said, adding his organization will seek court permission to intervene in the case.
The Family Council collected nearly 97,000 signatures, well above the 61,794 required, to place the proposed initiated act on the ballot. The drive began after the high court decision.
Rita Sklar, the director of the Arkansas ACLU, said people from across the state began expressing their concern about the new law after it was approved by voters. Some said they misunderstood what they were voting on, she said.
Stephanie Huffman of Conway said she and her live-in lesbian partner, Wendy Rickman, have already adopted one child and want to adopt another but can't because Act 1.
"It's wrong," Huffman said at Tuesday's news conference. "It's an injustice."
The lawsuit argues Act 1 disregards the best interests of children, keeps children in state custody at additional and unnecessary costs to taxpayers, burdens private, consensual acts of sexual intimacy between adults with no corresponding benefit to children and discriminates against a group of adults willing to serve as foster or adoptive parents.
"The purpose of the ballot initiative was made clear by sponsors," the lawsuit said, noting a flyer circulated the Family Council before the Nov. 4 election. "Act 1 was conceived, drafted and sponsored as part of a long-running campaign to 'ban homosexual couples from adopting children or serving as foster parents.'"
Reader Comments (87 comment(s))
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsibility of their authors. The Morning News does not review comments before their publication, nor do we guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by our comment policy. If you see a comment that violates our policy, please notify the web editor.
ozarks wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:49 PM:
" So, the voice of the people is challenged because the enlightened want to do what-ever they like and the majority are all stupid? This will be thrown out and the gays can spend all the money they want on lawyers. With the courts that are in place now they have no chance. I am not for or against either side, but I am for the will of the people even if I had of voted against the measure. When the majority speaks, I respect that even if I don't agree. Others need to try that. It is what made us the greatest nation on the earth. "
rebel4life wrote on Dec 31, 2008 7:21 AM:
" The ban on homosexual people not being able to adopt or foster children is crap! their preferance in men or woman has NOTHING to do with whether they would be a good parent or not!! all this is is a relious zelot on a rampage! it should not be up to them to tell us that a gay or lesbian couple are not fit....what makes them unfit??? their sexual preferance?? this ban makes our state offocials look stupid! dont we have rights?? where in the constitution does it say "because you are not in a religiously correct relationship you are unable to be an adoptive or foster parent"??? these people are showing their ignorance when they are keeping children in "the system" instead of placing them with caring men and women that want to help and love them! "
sempermama wrote on Dec 31, 2008 7:53 AM:
" This law also prevents ANY single person from adopting or fostering children. So, If you are a single grandparent, you can not keep your grandchildren should something happen to their parents because you are single. It doesn't matter if you are kin or not, if you are single (widow) you can not keep your grandchildren. "
tk wrote on Dec 31, 2008 9:42 AM:
" I know of more than a few under-informed voters who voted for the ban, but thought they were voting for allowing single people to foster and adopt. While I think that they were stupid for going to the polls unprepared, I think that if this happened all over the results may not have really been the will of the people.
Regardless, I agree with Ms. Scoggins that it is a parent's right to choose who takes care of their children if the unthinkable happens. So what if small minded people think that a gay relative or a single grandma is less fit to raise your children than a couple of strangers. A parent usually knows what is best for their child.
The ban should be overturned. "
Regardless, I agree with Ms. Scoggins that it is a parent's right to choose who takes care of their children if the unthinkable happens. So what if small minded people think that a gay relative or a single grandma is less fit to raise your children than a couple of strangers. A parent usually knows what is best for their child.
The ban should be overturned. "
ahuntsi wrote on Dec 31, 2008 9:44 AM:
" This ban keeps a lot of good people from being able to adopt children. Much more harm will come out of this than good. I agree with trying to promote and preserve the nuclear familty but removing a swath of viable and nurturing homes does not do that. "
alteregolxix wrote on Dec 31, 2008 10:55 AM:
" The destruction of the moral fiber this country was built on is half the problem for the issues we have in our world today. I'm so happy that a majority of people in this state have what it takes to stand up and vote for something that strikes down the further corruption of our children. I happily voted for Act 1 and will celebrate when this case is thrown out, as it should be. As far as sempermama's comments, maybe you should start a petition to amend the wording of this act in order to make allowances for single relatives. "
spencer wrote on Dec 31, 2008 11:48 AM:
" alteregolxix, you are so concerned about 'moral fibers', why didn't you attack the morals of those who are the cause of most children needing adoption or foster care in the first place? Many (not all) of these children are in foster care due to the action or innaction of heterosexual parents who don't want to or can't care for these children. "
TheLittleGuy wrote on Dec 31, 2008 1:40 PM:
" Spencer- I doubt attacking things that have happened in the past will make much of a difference in helping to better the future. Making good decisions now, in an effort to RESTORE morals and ethics in our society is the only way to move forward. "
ozarks wrote on Dec 31, 2008 1:45 PM:
" I for one have no faith at all in the DHS system. They seem to be corrupt and I don't see what good they have done for kids. I know they take kids out of their homes with no proof and sweep them off. There are 4 investigations in the state right now over the deaths of 4 children recently. Just this year we had the case where DHS placed boys with a man in Bella Vista (single person I will add) and come to find out he was abusing the kids put in his care. When reported to DHS, they just put the kids right back with him. So, you can't tell me talking all of these kids out of their homes is keeping them safe. I remember the detective that worked that case not having any good words about DHS. "
cal24 wrote on Dec 31, 2008 6:17 PM:
" This law would do nothing to address the Bella Vista situation, because the foster parent in that case was single. Act 1 prevents any unmarried, cohabiting couples from adopting or becoming foster parents. It was designed for one specific purpose, which was NOT preventing the type of abuse that happened in Bella Vista from occurring again. I wonder how many people who support Act 1 under the "majority rules" argument would accept that should a majority ever vote to take away their guns, or would they argue that there are certain individual rights that shouldn't be held up to a popular vote? "
ozarks wrote on Jan 1, 2009 10:19 AM:
" cal24: Guns are a matter of constitution, being a single parent isn't. "
scout65708 wrote on Jan 1, 2009 12:33 PM:
" Parents teach by example. I don't want a homosexual life style to be the example. "
sodapop wrote on Jan 1, 2009 1:55 PM:
" When I hear terms like homosexual lifestyles and family values I automatically suspect it means hating gays and hating something is not a desirable value. "
spencer wrote on Jan 1, 2009 4:42 PM:
" Scout65708, exactly what do you mean by a 'homosexual life style'?
Could you give examples of the way you believe homosexuals would raise their children in comparison to the ways that heterosexuals would raise them?
Do you know anyone who was raised in a 'homosexual life style'?
Just curious why you feel this way. "
Could you give examples of the way you believe homosexuals would raise their children in comparison to the ways that heterosexuals would raise them?
Do you know anyone who was raised in a 'homosexual life style'?
Just curious why you feel this way. "
TheLittleGuy wrote on Jan 1, 2009 5:42 PM:
" I have to agree with scout65708 on this one. I wouldn't want my children growing up believing that it is ok for a man to be with a man, or a woman to be with a woman. It's that simple.
I would think that most who oppose "homosexual lifestyles" have no doubts that some homosexuals most certainly bring good parenting skills to the table, just as some heterosexuals do. But I would also think that it's really more about their choice of lifestyle, and those who believe the same as I do choose not to support men with men and women with women.
As a believer in Christ, I feel commanded not to hate homosexuals, but rather, I feel commanded to love them. But loving them doesn't mean that I have to support their choices, nor do I have to subject my children to their lifestyle. "
I would think that most who oppose "homosexual lifestyles" have no doubts that some homosexuals most certainly bring good parenting skills to the table, just as some heterosexuals do. But I would also think that it's really more about their choice of lifestyle, and those who believe the same as I do choose not to support men with men and women with women.
As a believer in Christ, I feel commanded not to hate homosexuals, but rather, I feel commanded to love them. But loving them doesn't mean that I have to support their choices, nor do I have to subject my children to their lifestyle. "
masonstorm1958 wrote on Jan 2, 2009 12:05 AM:
" Science is getting ever so closer to the cause of homosexuality. Last report I read indicated it has something to do with our genetic makeup. So for now I will keep an open mind to the root causes of this paticular orientation. it's not a solid fact yet, so there is plenty of room for everybodys opinion. If science proves that they don't have a choice as far as their sexual preference goes, that is going to turn the religious argument on it's head. You can't argue fantasy over fact. But we are not there yet. Society itself will have to come to grips with a segment of our populace that is not, quote "normal" unquote, by our standards. I strongly disagree with those who put religious dogma above the welfare of the children. It just proves to me where their priorities are. On this issue, reason and common sense goes flying right out the window at the mention of homosexuality. Most people can't see beyond the red haze that envelopes their brain over this. When people's hard core beliefs are overthrown by facts, they just go into denial. Accept people for who they are, not who you want them to be. I have a great many aquaintances because of that attitude. My Grandfather instilled that into me during my formulative years. Don't judge and ye shall not be judged. That's for the Bible thumpers. "
91151 wrote on Jan 2, 2009 8:26 AM:
" The law makers of this state didn't put this ban in themselves. It was voted in by the majority! That's what this country is based on, letting the majority speak. If we are able to sue because it was put to vote and some didn't like the outcome what's next. I didn't vote for Obama, but he won, so, where do I go to sue. "
TheLittleGuy wrote on Jan 2, 2009 9:41 AM:
" Obviously, if you really understood my post, my priorities are exactly where they need to be- with my children, and the betterment of their lives thru my meager attempts to reverse a society that is plunging further and further into debauchery.
Even if science proves there is something chemical about sexual preference, I will still believe homosexuality is wrong. I can accept science as a reason behind why we do the things we do. I can do that as an educated, logical human being. But as a believer, I can also choose not to support what I consider to be a sinful lifestyle.
I have acquaintances who drink, who gamble, who are habitual liars- all things that have been argued in the past to possibly be caused by chemical reasons in our brains, heredity, etc- but I don't have to support their choices. I only have to love them.
Tell me- and this is where I'm ADMITTEDLY ignorant- are there other mainstream religions (Buddhism, Islam, etc) that promote homosexuality? Christianity says it's wrong, plain and simple. I choose to believe this because I have faith in my God and what He says. See, the reason we have faith in anything is because it's tried and tested, and proven to be solid and reliable.
cont'd... "
Even if science proves there is something chemical about sexual preference, I will still believe homosexuality is wrong. I can accept science as a reason behind why we do the things we do. I can do that as an educated, logical human being. But as a believer, I can also choose not to support what I consider to be a sinful lifestyle.
I have acquaintances who drink, who gamble, who are habitual liars- all things that have been argued in the past to possibly be caused by chemical reasons in our brains, heredity, etc- but I don't have to support their choices. I only have to love them.
Tell me- and this is where I'm ADMITTEDLY ignorant- are there other mainstream religions (Buddhism, Islam, etc) that promote homosexuality? Christianity says it's wrong, plain and simple. I choose to believe this because I have faith in my God and what He says. See, the reason we have faith in anything is because it's tried and tested, and proven to be solid and reliable.
cont'd... "
TheLittleGuy wrote on Jan 2, 2009 9:42 AM:
" I've seen God at work in my life and in the lives of those around me- believers AND nonbelievers (even though they didn't know it was God's hand touching them). He has proven Himself to me, therefore I trust in Him and his teachings. So, it's ok if science wants to try and justify the beliefs of the nonbelievers. I will still side with my God who has proven himself thru me.
True believers know exactly what I am saying, and nonbelievers would fare well to relax a little, stop trying to be so politically correct, drop their cynicism, let their guard down and trust in something. Knowlege is great, but the rate that our culture pursues it is alarming. Instead of rushing and rushing for the next bit of knowledge, how about just waiting on God? There's a novel idea.
My point is this, I choose to believe in a God that is tried and true, and therefore I believe His teachings. So come what may with science- I'll still belive homosexuality is a sin, and will forever choose not support it's effect on our culture, and most importantly, my children. I'll vote against any measure that supports it, and can still love my fellow human beings at the same time.
cont'd... "
True believers know exactly what I am saying, and nonbelievers would fare well to relax a little, stop trying to be so politically correct, drop their cynicism, let their guard down and trust in something. Knowlege is great, but the rate that our culture pursues it is alarming. Instead of rushing and rushing for the next bit of knowledge, how about just waiting on God? There's a novel idea.
My point is this, I choose to believe in a God that is tried and true, and therefore I believe His teachings. So come what may with science- I'll still belive homosexuality is a sin, and will forever choose not support it's effect on our culture, and most importantly, my children. I'll vote against any measure that supports it, and can still love my fellow human beings at the same time.
cont'd... "
TheLittleGuy wrote on Jan 2, 2009 9:43 AM:
" Non believers in Christ who read this post will surely fire back flaming arrows, posts with many intellectual arguments that try to prove me wrong, find fallacies in my arguments, and holes in my rationale. That's perfectly ok. But what's NOT ok is that many fellow believers in Christ who read this will NOT post a thing to support what I'm saying here. Speak up. Do your part to reverse what our society has become.
Alright, fire your arrows. "
Alright, fire your arrows. "
TheLittleGuy wrote on Jan 2, 2009 9:45 AM:
" Sorry- last sentence in the first paragraph of my second post should have read "I will still side with my God who has proven Himself TO me." (not THRU me) "
scout65708 wrote on Jan 2, 2009 10:07 AM:
" I did not say any thing hateful about homosexuals. My comment was pretty cut and dry. "
BCR wrote on Jan 2, 2009 10:16 AM:
" The result of Act 1 was the overall voice of the people. California is trying to pull the same stunt with the outcome of a vote banning gay marriages in that state. The people voted, some didn't like the outcome, now they want to go back, and toss out the new law. Again, the MAJORITY have spoken, so get over it. The letter of the law bans unmarried, single individuals from adopting children. Doesn't "single" out gays or lesbians. Those two words are never used in the law... If gays and lesbians want to adopt, they need to propose a law that allows them to legally be married. "
sodapop wrote on Jan 2, 2009 10:36 AM:
" BCR---The majority does not rule in the USA. It the majority ruled Al Gore would have been elected president in 2001. "
spencer wrote on Jan 2, 2009 10:37 AM:
" This isn't about YOUR kids. This is about kids who are being raised in facilities by people who get paid by the hour and come and go in shifts. It's about kids who may have been abandoned or abused. It's about kids who want a family to love and show them that they are wanted in this world. It's about kids who would do anything to have a home to grow up in.
It's also about families who want THEIR kids raised by relatives that they know and have grown up with should something happen to them. They prefer this to having their kids raised by strangers or in group homes.
You people are VERY SELFISH.
Every kid may not belong with a 'cohabitating family' and they shouldn't have to be placed there. But in situations where they do belong, they should be able to.
And to the poster who didn't vote for Obama: If Obama becoming president takes away your CONSTITUTIONAL rights, by all means, sue. "
It's also about families who want THEIR kids raised by relatives that they know and have grown up with should something happen to them. They prefer this to having their kids raised by strangers or in group homes.
You people are VERY SELFISH.
Every kid may not belong with a 'cohabitating family' and they shouldn't have to be placed there. But in situations where they do belong, they should be able to.
And to the poster who didn't vote for Obama: If Obama becoming president takes away your CONSTITUTIONAL rights, by all means, sue. "
TheLittleGuy wrote on Jan 2, 2009 10:55 AM:
" Ah, but don't you see spencer, it IS about my kids. And it's about scout65708's kids. And it's about 91151's kids. (By the way, thank you 91151 for taking a stand. Anyone else?)
See, we can't control what others do, nor can we help what happened to the children in those facilities (Did you notice the PAST tense of the word happen?). The only thing we can do is control ourselves, and I choose to take a stand in my beliefs.
I also do that knowing full well that I may not be here tomorrow, possibly leaving my children in the same state as some of the others. But I still choose to believe that God will take care of them rather than me taking passive routes that may place them in the homes of homosexuals.
I don't think it's selfish to take measures to protect my family, nor do I think it's selfish to take measures to reverse the downward spiral our culture has taken. This "sue happy" and utterly WHINY society in which we live is ridiculous to say the least. Let's all whine and complain when we don't get what we want. Sounds to me that is the selfish state of mind. "
See, we can't control what others do, nor can we help what happened to the children in those facilities (Did you notice the PAST tense of the word happen?). The only thing we can do is control ourselves, and I choose to take a stand in my beliefs.
I also do that knowing full well that I may not be here tomorrow, possibly leaving my children in the same state as some of the others. But I still choose to believe that God will take care of them rather than me taking passive routes that may place them in the homes of homosexuals.
I don't think it's selfish to take measures to protect my family, nor do I think it's selfish to take measures to reverse the downward spiral our culture has taken. This "sue happy" and utterly WHINY society in which we live is ridiculous to say the least. Let's all whine and complain when we don't get what we want. Sounds to me that is the selfish state of mind. "
spencer wrote on Jan 2, 2009 11:22 AM:
" The families involved in this lawsuit aren't choosing to place their children in the 'homes of homosexuals'. They are choosing to place their children in the homes of relatives that they KNOW, TRUST, and BELIEVE will raise their children the way they feel is right. There should not be laws keeping them from doing this.
I don't believe you are being selfish for protecting your children. You have that right. However, this law takes away that right from others who want to do the same thing. "
I don't believe you are being selfish for protecting your children. You have that right. However, this law takes away that right from others who want to do the same thing. "
BCR wrote on Jan 2, 2009 11:48 AM:
" Touche sodapop. I stand corrected. Majority does NOT always rule. Maybe someday, someone will figure out exactly what the "electoral college" really is. Do they have a football team? "
TheLittleGuy wrote on Jan 2, 2009 11:50 AM:
" I've never said this was solely about the parental rights of homosexuals. I'm smart enough to understand that there are others who will be affected by this- single aunts and uncles, widowed grandparents, etc. I do think it's unfortunate that the act lumped all the groups together, because it DOES limit the ability of finding good homes for children.
However, I'm willing to vote against measures like this because I view the increasing normalcy of homosexuality in our culture as the greater evil. So, I take my stand. It's all I can do. Can't control what they do, but I can control myself and make a good example for my children and other around me who take the time to understand.
In my opinion, acts like this are only one way that homosexuals try to "slip in" anchor points in our society in an effort to promote their ways. If I can do my part to stop even a portion of the notion of homosexuality as being normal, then I've done my best.
You see, Christ doesn't tell us to judge (as masonstorm1958 suggested earlier), but he does tell us to go and make disciples for Him, to teach his good works and promote walking in life as He did (or as closely as we can, as we are all full of sin). So, here I am, doing my best to make good decisions for Him. "
However, I'm willing to vote against measures like this because I view the increasing normalcy of homosexuality in our culture as the greater evil. So, I take my stand. It's all I can do. Can't control what they do, but I can control myself and make a good example for my children and other around me who take the time to understand.
In my opinion, acts like this are only one way that homosexuals try to "slip in" anchor points in our society in an effort to promote their ways. If I can do my part to stop even a portion of the notion of homosexuality as being normal, then I've done my best.
You see, Christ doesn't tell us to judge (as masonstorm1958 suggested earlier), but he does tell us to go and make disciples for Him, to teach his good works and promote walking in life as He did (or as closely as we can, as we are all full of sin). So, here I am, doing my best to make good decisions for Him. "
swampman wrote on Jan 2, 2009 12:38 PM:
" Why are the moral compasses here even talking about single people here? This law is a way to try and show Gays that they not GOD can punish what they see as wrong and that should say it all. I raised two kids by myself I am single straight and they seem to be doing fine. A 30 year friend raised 4 adopted kids on his own they have done well oh and he is a minister. Now you say if I lose one of my children I couldn't raise a grandchild. Who do you people think you are? Your not God or even Christ you in my humble opion aren't even close to Christ like. This is about your fear of change and things you don't understand the law has NOTHING to do with what is best for the kids. Its about money and power the money and power to force people to live in your little box. You are hurting people and condeming children to an uncertain life. GOD help you all! "
91151 wrote on Jan 2, 2009 12:47 PM:
" You know, I have a daughter that should something happen to me and my husband at the same time, there are 2 choices we can make: her unmarried Christian single sister, or her Christian grandparents(either side). Now, I'll admit, and I'll get bashed for this. Single older siblings of a younger one orphaned should be able to step up and take guardianship of that younger sibling, PROVIDING, that the older sibling is established, ie: has a job, a decent place to stay, background checks, etc. Now, I don't believe gays/lesbians should have the right to adopt or foster. Do I think they are evil, ABSOLUTELY NOT! I know several and they are decent people. HOWEVER! It goes against GOD and his creation. God made us, he destroyed Sodom and Gamar for homosexuality. God doesn't change because people have, and because we have now,unfortutately, become a politically correct world. The maker of a certain make/model of a car, has owners maual's and instructions. If you go against that, you'll eventually have problems. His owners manual does not change for that car just because times change and people want to use that car differently. Same with the Bible, it's God's owners maual for his creation. "
moonglow wrote on Jan 2, 2009 1:30 PM:
" Not even God himself could adopt because he is not married. "
91151 wrote on Jan 2, 2009 1:49 PM:
" We are all his anyway, he created us, so adoption doesn't apply to him. "
TheLittleGuy wrote on Jan 2, 2009 1:57 PM:
" Ok, so I'm guessing swampman is having a rough day.
None of us that are for the act and against the homosexual lifestyle are calling names or getting personal. Tossing around words like "moral compasses" accusing us of not being Christ like, accusing us of telling us we shouldn't put people in our "little box" tells me you're a little irritated over the conversation. It was bound to happen at some point.
Here's the deal though. When you say things like "This law is a way to try and show Gays that they not GOD can punish what they see as wrong and that should say it all.", I read that as in you do think we have a God, and that He will be a judge for our sins. My question to you is, in believing that, do you not also believe that God views homosexuality as a sin?
Also, keep in mind, that I've already stated that the tragedy here is that the act encompasses more than one group. And before you start thinking too much about me, I'm a single dad with a 3 year old. My only sibling is also single, and my grandmother is a widow. I only have my parents at this point who are married, so if one of them passes in the next few years, I'd be in the same boat should I not wake up the next day. "
None of us that are for the act and against the homosexual lifestyle are calling names or getting personal. Tossing around words like "moral compasses" accusing us of not being Christ like, accusing us of telling us we shouldn't put people in our "little box" tells me you're a little irritated over the conversation. It was bound to happen at some point.
Here's the deal though. When you say things like "This law is a way to try and show Gays that they not GOD can punish what they see as wrong and that should say it all.", I read that as in you do think we have a God, and that He will be a judge for our sins. My question to you is, in believing that, do you not also believe that God views homosexuality as a sin?
Also, keep in mind, that I've already stated that the tragedy here is that the act encompasses more than one group. And before you start thinking too much about me, I'm a single dad with a 3 year old. My only sibling is also single, and my grandmother is a widow. I only have my parents at this point who are married, so if one of them passes in the next few years, I'd be in the same boat should I not wake up the next day. "
hannah wrote on Jan 2, 2009 3:46 PM:
" Since the Bible keeps beeing brought into this discussion, what about some of the other things that are written? Are they still taught and believed today?
MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
This law does nothing but hurt children who deserve to be wanted. Good grief. "
MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
This law does nothing but hurt children who deserve to be wanted. Good grief. "
sodapop wrote on Jan 2, 2009 5:14 PM:
" hannah-I think a lot of people are happy to cherry pick the parts of the Bible they like and skip over the rest. "
TheLittleGuy wrote on Jan 2, 2009 10:27 PM:
" Ooh Ooh!!! Hannah! Don't forget the one where women aren't supposed to cut their hair!! That's one of my favorites to throw in too!! You know I love my women with hair down to their ankles!!!
C'mon. Really? Someone ALWAYS has to try that argument at some point. Guess it's as good of a time as any.
Ok, one more rant then I'm off to bed. No one can ever agree on these blogs anyway. I never spouted out-of-context bible verses in my posts, nor did I call anyone names or said anyone was foolish for their opinions and beliefs. So anyone who is searching for a way to bash me needs to look elsewhere.
We could let this get fully religious very easily, because religion is a subject about which folks just love to argue. We could talk about how all of Hannah's examples came from the OLD Testament, and even the verses from Mark (The NEW Testament) were referring to the laws of Moses (from the OLD again) and how all of those teachings took place PRIOR to Christ's crucifixion and His promise of forgiveness and salvation. Oh, homosexuality was the OLD Testament, wasn't it you say? So forget it like the others? Well the New Testament goes on to teach against sexual immorality as well, so I guess we better pay some attention to it.
cont'd... "
C'mon. Really? Someone ALWAYS has to try that argument at some point. Guess it's as good of a time as any.
Ok, one more rant then I'm off to bed. No one can ever agree on these blogs anyway. I never spouted out-of-context bible verses in my posts, nor did I call anyone names or said anyone was foolish for their opinions and beliefs. So anyone who is searching for a way to bash me needs to look elsewhere.
We could let this get fully religious very easily, because religion is a subject about which folks just love to argue. We could talk about how all of Hannah's examples came from the OLD Testament, and even the verses from Mark (The NEW Testament) were referring to the laws of Moses (from the OLD again) and how all of those teachings took place PRIOR to Christ's crucifixion and His promise of forgiveness and salvation. Oh, homosexuality was the OLD Testament, wasn't it you say? So forget it like the others? Well the New Testament goes on to teach against sexual immorality as well, so I guess we better pay some attention to it.
cont'd... "
TheLittleGuy wrote on Jan 2, 2009 10:29 PM:
" The point is that this is NOT about religion. My posts above were meant to show that supporters of this act have reasons of their own. To show that we're not stupid, but that we have real reasons behind why we support this act.
I stand behind what I've said, and thank those of you who came forward to admit that you agree (Whoknows- I saw you sneaking in- thanks!). It's sad that more believers won't take a stand. Some of you are fooling yourselves if you think believers don't feel like a minority sometimes.
I may be brash sometimes, vocal and opinionated, but I also try to be educated and logical in my arguments. I'm not above learning, but I'm not going to abandon my beliefs brought by a God who has proven Himself to me.
This act is unfortunate in that it lumps too many groups together, causing some to suffer for others, and in the end, lots of children will feel the effect. I'm sad because of it, and will continue to pray for any affected by it.
By the way, did anyone even notice that I use the term "believer"? Christians get a bad rap these days, mostly because of their own doing- some of them even have a nasty tendency to use verses out of context :-). Just remember though, we're not all members of the Westboro Baptist Church. "
I stand behind what I've said, and thank those of you who came forward to admit that you agree (Whoknows- I saw you sneaking in- thanks!). It's sad that more believers won't take a stand. Some of you are fooling yourselves if you think believers don't feel like a minority sometimes.
I may be brash sometimes, vocal and opinionated, but I also try to be educated and logical in my arguments. I'm not above learning, but I'm not going to abandon my beliefs brought by a God who has proven Himself to me.
This act is unfortunate in that it lumps too many groups together, causing some to suffer for others, and in the end, lots of children will feel the effect. I'm sad because of it, and will continue to pray for any affected by it.
By the way, did anyone even notice that I use the term "believer"? Christians get a bad rap these days, mostly because of their own doing- some of them even have a nasty tendency to use verses out of context :-). Just remember though, we're not all members of the Westboro Baptist Church. "
sodapop wrote on Jan 3, 2009 5:42 PM:
" TheLittleGuy--- You are correct, we are not all members of the Westboro Baptist Church, we are not all members of your church either. In fact we as Americans are not required to be believers of any religion so don't try making your religious beliefs the law of the land. "
91151 wrote on Jan 3, 2009 7:05 PM:
" sodapop...religious beliefs, belief in God, is what this land was founded on. It is unfortunately no longer the belief/law of this land, and that's why our country is in the mess it's in. "
sodapop wrote on Jan 3, 2009 8:28 PM:
" 91151--Not really, the Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. "
hannah wrote on Jan 3, 2009 8:38 PM:
" You know, TheLittleGuy, it really doesn't matter which version or interpretation of the Book believers turn to for spiritual guidance and teachings.
It doesn't matter if people believe that homosexuality "goes against GOD and his creation." That "God made us, he destroyed Sodom and [Gomorrah] for homosexuality."
It doesn't matter why some choose to "view the increasing normalcy of homosexuality in our culture as the greater evil."
What does matter is that our founding fathers had the foresight to create a constitution (and amended as necessary) to keep laws like this from being enacted.
It doesn't matter if anyone thinks that those who are behind this lawsuit are "sue happy". Our fathers thought of the importance of guaranteeing that right as well.
What does matter is that there are kids that need and deserve help and there are people who are willing and able to provide it but can’t because of this law.
It does matter that there are families that should be able to choose who will raise their kids in case it ever becomes necessary but can’t because of this law.
This is a hurtful law and I believe it will be overturned. "
It doesn't matter if people believe that homosexuality "goes against GOD and his creation." That "God made us, he destroyed Sodom and [Gomorrah] for homosexuality."
It doesn't matter why some choose to "view the increasing normalcy of homosexuality in our culture as the greater evil."
What does matter is that our founding fathers had the foresight to create a constitution (and amended as necessary) to keep laws like this from being enacted.
It doesn't matter if anyone thinks that those who are behind this lawsuit are "sue happy". Our fathers thought of the importance of guaranteeing that right as well.
What does matter is that there are kids that need and deserve help and there are people who are willing and able to provide it but can’t because of this law.
It does matter that there are families that should be able to choose who will raise their kids in case it ever becomes necessary but can’t because of this law.
This is a hurtful law and I believe it will be overturned. "
StillRight wrote on Jan 3, 2009 9:17 PM:
" According to the comments I read, I see that most have not read Arkansas Act 1!
It reads as follows:
"Section 1: Adoption and foster care of minors.
(a) A minor may not be adopted or placed in a foster home if the individual seeking to adopt or to serve as a foster parent is cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of a marriage which is valid under the constitution and laws of this state.
(b) The prohibition of this section applies equally to cohabiting opposite-sex and same-sex individuals."
It ONLY restricts those that are co-habitating from adoption. Any single person, heterosexual or homosexual, can adopt! "
It reads as follows:
"Section 1: Adoption and foster care of minors.
(a) A minor may not be adopted or placed in a foster home if the individual seeking to adopt or to serve as a foster parent is cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of a marriage which is valid under the constitution and laws of this state.
(b) The prohibition of this section applies equally to cohabiting opposite-sex and same-sex individuals."
It ONLY restricts those that are co-habitating from adoption. Any single person, heterosexual or homosexual, can adopt! "
nwa wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:31 AM:
" Now StillRight, you're not supposed to read the legislation, that's cheating. It makes it so much harder to attack a strawman if you're not allowed to create one first. Most of the arguments on this list and those who are attacking Act 1 in LR are based on ignorance of the Act. I would argue for education, but so many are purposefully ignorant. I encourage most of the posters to go and actually read the Act and think about it before posting again. "
hannah wrote on Jan 4, 2009 8:39 AM:
" I would also encourage people to re-read this newspaper article. It explains why the law suit was filed in the first place. "
Jones wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:01 AM:
" Voters have spoken and it will not get overturn so stop your whinning... And Hannah when you go in front of our creator "GOD" just say that it does not matter what GOD says about your way of living because our "Founding Fathers" say all you did was ok and it was your human right... "
hannah wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:28 AM:
" We have yet to see whether this law will be overturned. I believe it will be. As far as appearing before God, I appear before Him now. He speaks to me, blesses me, and guides me every minute of my life on His earth. I look forward to the day when I go in front of Him. That, my friend, is between Him and me. "
nwa wrote on Jan 4, 2009 11:31 AM:
" Hannah, on what grounds do you feel that it will be overturned? "
sodapop wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:18 PM:
" A Florida judge overturned a law prohibiting homosexual couples from adopting children saying "It is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person's ability to parent," "A child in need of love, safety and stability does not first consider the sexual orientation of his parent. The exclusion causes some children to be deprived of a permanent placement with a family that is best suited to their needs."
If this happens in Arkansas it will be up to the hate mongers to prove why cohabiting heterosexuals are forbidden to adopt or care for foster children. "
If this happens in Arkansas it will be up to the hate mongers to prove why cohabiting heterosexuals are forbidden to adopt or care for foster children. "
StillRight wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:41 PM:
" If "cohabiting heterosexuals" can't make a life long commitment to each other how can they make a commitment to raise a child? "
spencer wrote on Jan 4, 2009 1:56 PM:
" You can read the actual text of the lawsuit here: http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/lgbt/cole_v_arkansas_complaintv2.pdf
It explains the legal grounds on which this lawsuit was filed.
You can also read the profiles of the 20 plaintiffs and their personal reasons for filing the lawsuit here:
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/38201res20081230.html "
It explains the legal grounds on which this lawsuit was filed.
You can also read the profiles of the 20 plaintiffs and their personal reasons for filing the lawsuit here:
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/38201res20081230.html "
sodapop wrote on Jan 4, 2009 7:28 PM:
" StillRight---Arkansas has one of the highest divorce rates in the country and the conservative Christians who pushed this law on the people of the state have an higher than state average rate of divorce. I don't think this life long commitment you mention is working too well. "
VHugo wrote on Jan 5, 2009 5:16 AM:
" I'm sure if you put an amendment to the Arkansas voters to ban mixed race marriages, it would surely pass. It was a felony in 1961 for caucasians and blacks to cohabitate in Arkansas. The church pews then were packed with hate mongers who saw no conflict with their bigotry and their bibles. The story is the same today--the agents of hate and intolerance continue to misuse the bible to push their agenda. "
sodapop wrote on Jan 5, 2009 7:40 AM:
" StillRight--If life long commitment is what you think is important in raising a child then one simple solution would be to allow same sex marriages. "
ozarks wrote on Jan 5, 2009 8:30 AM:
" I am not a religious person but still do not agree that homosexuality is something normal. If we except that, then what is next? So, attack me for not being religious and for understanding the ballot and for supporting the will of the people if you like. As for those that have brought hate into the bebate or race, give it a rest. The people have spoken. "
whoknows wrote on Jan 5, 2009 8:49 AM:
" Why do we take the time to vote if the courts are going to overturn our will everytime some does not like it "
sodapop wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:09 AM:
" A persons rights are not given to them by the law or the Constitution of the USA. Even when some people owned other humans and treated them as chattel those people had rights but they had been taken away by force. If raising a child is the objective then a loving family environment is desirable and this can be achieved even when it goes counter to some peoples religious views. "
whoknows wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:35 AM:
" I am not refering to Religous beliefs I am talking about our voting rights! "
hannah wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:44 AM:
" Anything can be voted into law. However, when people belive that the law takes away fundamental rights that are guaranteed under the constitution, then the courts have to be involved. Those that filed this lawsuit believe that this law does violate their constitutional rights. (Second paragraph in the article above.) If the courts decide that the law doesn't violate the constitution, then the law stands. It's happened MANY times in history. "
hannah wrote on Jan 5, 2009 10:00 AM:
" BTW, Spencer, thanks for posting the link to the website that had the background information about the plaintiffs in this case. It helps to put faces and stories to this issue.
I would also encourage people to check out the Arkansas DHS website on adoption at http://www.state.ar.us/dhs/adoption/adoption.html
Read the background information on some of the children waiting for families. "
I would also encourage people to check out the Arkansas DHS website on adoption at http://www.state.ar.us/dhs/adoption/adoption.html
Read the background information on some of the children waiting for families. "
jewels74 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 11:04 AM:
" I don't usually comment however, I couldn't help myself this time. I happened to vote against this Act for the simple reason that should I and my husband die at the same time I have a sister who is single and a best friend who is like a mom to my kids that is single and I think that they would be better with them then someone the state picks out even thought they are both SINGLE PARENTS themselves one has 3 boys the other 2 girls. This needs to be reworded not so much overturned. "
whoknows wrote on Jan 5, 2009 11:28 AM:
" I agree with you Jewels. I know that people have a right to decide who should raise their children should something happen to them but they need to fight to get this reworded not overturned unless they can get it back on the ballot and let the voters decide "
ozarks wrote on Jan 5, 2009 11:58 AM:
" Soda, your debate to tie homosexuality to slavey is way off base. As is your attempt to belittle those that are religious. For me and most of those that voted against the, we don't care if 2 men or 2 women want to practice homosexuality behind close doors. You and those like you have an agenda to not only practice homosexuality but want rights to marry and adopt children to be indoctinated. Know one is taking their rights away. They may marry those of the opposite sex and they can have children. I didn't agree with Clinton when he allowed the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military some years ago and I don't agree with you now and never will and please stop with the religious labling. What next Soda? Should a man allow to marry a beast? Using your logic that would be his right too. Where ios the line drawn? You have to think about this. What will be tabbo and what will not? For me, men marrying men and women marrying women is the line. Then to bring innocent children into the mix is ludacris. This debat began by discussing protecting children. That is my goal. Try sticking to that and not balsh the religious right or try and tie homosexuals to slavery. You have gone too far with that. Hannah: If anything can be voted into law, why is the gay law defeted time after time, state after state. "
ozarks wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:03 PM:
" The sad thing is the gays brought this to a vote trying to back door us with their life style using singles being able to adopt. They are always hiding their agenda and even themselves. I agree that if a couple passes a single aunt or grandparent should be allowed to raise that child. I'm not sure they can't still but the homosexuals are to blame. And again, don't pin religion on me, that is not the case. I just feel homosexuality is wrong, period! "
91151 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:17 PM:
" Don't you love it that we Christians are called hate mongers because we stand up for what we believe! I don't hate homosexuals, blacks, or any other race. I don't agree with homosexuality, but I don't hate the person. Like I said, I know several, and don't hate them, they are good people, but, I don't agree with their lifestyle. Please don't use the term "hate mongers" when referring to Christians. And, ozark, you are right, the homosexuals brought about this vote, and since they didn't get their way, are now suing! I want to sue because the presidential race is put to a vote, Obama won, whom I didn't vote for(nothing to do with race), so I want to know where I go to sue? "
hannah wrote on Jan 5, 2009 12:32 PM:
" 91151, could you be a little more specific as to which constitutional right was violated by Obama winning the election? If I knew that, I could probably help you decide who to sue. "
91151 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:10 PM:
" Since this is a Consitutional right for homosexual's to adopt, why did they ask the law makers to put it to a vote instead of taking other measures to make sure they could continue. I'm just saying, if we are going to able to start suing because things are put to a vote, the majority votes against what we wanted, this country is in a big mess. I don't think our founding fathers meant for Constitutional rights to be put on a ballot for a vote. So, again, if this is a Constitutional Right we are speaking of, they should have never pushed for it to be put to a vote by the people of this state. They were sure it'd win, it didn't, know they are crying foul. Had it passed, and those that voted for it tried to sue, we'd be told to get over it, the majority spoke. "
hannah wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:50 PM:
" We did not vote on the constitutional right for gays to be able to adopt or not adopt. That was NOT what Act 1 was.
Act 1 created a new law (someone put the actual text of it in a post above).
Those who are suing believe that by passing this new law, it infringes on fundamental rights that ARE ALREADY guaranteed by the constitution (equal treatment and due process - as listed in the newspaper article above).
They are asking the court to determine if what they believe is true or. If the court agrees with them, the law is overturned. If the court disagrees, the law stands.
Here's the history of Act 1:
Arkansas used to ban gay people from being foster parents. The Supreme Court said they could not do this.
A year or so ago, The Arkansas Family Council then tried to push a bill that would have banned same-sex adoption or foster care through the Arkansas legislature. Governor Mike Beebe had suggested that there were constitutional problems with the bill and it never came to pass.
When the legislation failed, the Family Council drafted an initiative that was initially rejected by the Attorney General McDaniel "because it included references to marriage as the ideal child-rearing environment and to cohabiting households as more prone to instability, poverty and other societal ills." When these references were removed the ballot was approved and certified. "
Act 1 created a new law (someone put the actual text of it in a post above).
Those who are suing believe that by passing this new law, it infringes on fundamental rights that ARE ALREADY guaranteed by the constitution (equal treatment and due process - as listed in the newspaper article above).
They are asking the court to determine if what they believe is true or. If the court agrees with them, the law is overturned. If the court disagrees, the law stands.
Here's the history of Act 1:
Arkansas used to ban gay people from being foster parents. The Supreme Court said they could not do this.
A year or so ago, The Arkansas Family Council then tried to push a bill that would have banned same-sex adoption or foster care through the Arkansas legislature. Governor Mike Beebe had suggested that there were constitutional problems with the bill and it never came to pass.
When the legislation failed, the Family Council drafted an initiative that was initially rejected by the Attorney General McDaniel "because it included references to marriage as the ideal child-rearing environment and to cohabiting households as more prone to instability, poverty and other societal ills." When these references were removed the ballot was approved and certified. "
hannah wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:54 PM:
" -cont-
The ballot was voted on and the law passed.
This is where we are today. The 20 plaintiffs are asking a court to determine if the law is constituational.
The Arkansas Family Council is not a gay organization (about as far from it as possible).
They are the ones that pushed this and put it on the ballot for a vote. "
The ballot was voted on and the law passed.
This is where we are today. The 20 plaintiffs are asking a court to determine if the law is constituational.
The Arkansas Family Council is not a gay organization (about as far from it as possible).
They are the ones that pushed this and put it on the ballot for a vote. "
listenandhear wrote on Jan 5, 2009 2:30 PM:
" StillRight, I have a question for you. This is not meant to be sarcastic. In one of your posts above you quoted the text as saying "...cohabitating with a sexual partner..." Wouldn't that be subject to proving that the prospective adoptive parents/foster parents are in a sexual relationship? And if not, then are we supposed to just assume that they are? In the case of a friend of mine. She and her best friend have lived together for 15 years. They are not homosexual. If she decided that she wanted to foster would she have to prove that she wasn't in a sexual relationship with her cohabitating, same sex friend? "
sodapop wrote on Jan 5, 2009 3:05 PM:
" Ozark---There is a connection between homosexuals and slavery when the majority controls the lives of a minority through the law and claming that it is the will of God. You say the homosexuals brought this to a vote, are you saying Jerry Cox and the Family Council who sponsored this law are gay?
I fail to see how you compare the relationship of two consenting adults to that of a human and an animal. I will never understand this argument against same-sex marriage. What is going on in your mind that makes you jump to this conclusion?---On the rest of this I will defer to hannah who is much more persuasive than me. "
I fail to see how you compare the relationship of two consenting adults to that of a human and an animal. I will never understand this argument against same-sex marriage. What is going on in your mind that makes you jump to this conclusion?---On the rest of this I will defer to hannah who is much more persuasive than me. "
ozarks wrote on Jan 5, 2009 6:40 PM:
" Soda: Ridculous. No connection and no comparison. Also, you should stop painting all that voted for that bill as over zelious religious right wing nuts or idiots that didn't know what we were voting for. I have tried to not come down on either side of the issue and support the will of the people like I do on all issues. I have informed all that read this threads, I am not a religious (Christian, Muslum, Jewish, Wicka or Buddist) type person in any way of anu kind. Still, me and many more like me do not agree that homosexuality is a proper or normal behaviour. Now, no one is trying to take your right to be a homosexual away. Be homosexual. I will not ask and you do not tell. When it comes to indoctoranting children to the life style or beliefs is a problem. So, please pratice your sexuality all you like and stop telling all that don't agree fools and they don't understand. Just the oppisite, we are informed and didn't need the chursh, CNN, or Foxnews to tell us what to think and what is right. I ask you, what is the line when it comes to sexuality? Is their one as far as you are concerned? We must have limits and lines. Homosexuality is not being attacked. Homosexuality and children is a problem to me. "
ozarks wrote on Jan 5, 2009 6:45 PM:
" As for dicussing beasteallty, homosexuality or any other sexual acts would not be proper in this forum. But you understand my feeling about all of it and if I do not have to paint a picture. You understand full well my meaning, you are only trying to cloud the debate. You have proven to be intelligent so don't insult mine by acting as if you don't understand my limits. Who agrees, religious or not? Hanna votes = Nay. We have that down. "
sodapop wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:12 PM:
" Actually I have been happily married to my wife for a few decades now and have a passel of grandchildren. I just don't understand why anyone feels the need to legislate restrictions on other peoples civil rights. "
spencer wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:38 PM:
" I had to laugh when I read the two posts suggesting that "the gays brought this to a vote." I wonder what Jerry Cox would say to that?!? LOL
Why would we have initiated this? The Arkansas Supreme Court had just ruled that DHS could not exclude gay people from the foster program.
Cox and The Family Council then tried to get a law through congress to keep gay people from the foster program AND to keep them from adopting. That didn't work.
So after a couple of attempts (wording problems and not enough valid signatures at first) they got this initiative before the voters and passed by 57% - 43%.
And you are all correct, it isn't specifically prohibiting gay people, it prohibits "any individuals cohabiting outside of a valid marriage to adopt or provide foster care to minors." It just so happens that it is illegal for gay people to marry. (Yes, I know, we can marry, just not the person we love and intend to spend our life with.)
Now, it's up to Circuit Judge Timothy Fox to decide. I hope he sees through Jerry Cox's "backdoor" way of getting HIS agenda passed.
And thankfully, Judge Fox is the same judge that first decided it was unconstitutional to keep gays out of the foster program in the first place. A decision later affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court. "
Why would we have initiated this? The Arkansas Supreme Court had just ruled that DHS could not exclude gay people from the foster program.
Cox and The Family Council then tried to get a law through congress to keep gay people from the foster program AND to keep them from adopting. That didn't work.
So after a couple of attempts (wording problems and not enough valid signatures at first) they got this initiative before the voters and passed by 57% - 43%.
And you are all correct, it isn't specifically prohibiting gay people, it prohibits "any individuals cohabiting outside of a valid marriage to adopt or provide foster care to minors." It just so happens that it is illegal for gay people to marry. (Yes, I know, we can marry, just not the person we love and intend to spend our life with.)
Now, it's up to Circuit Judge Timothy Fox to decide. I hope he sees through Jerry Cox's "backdoor" way of getting HIS agenda passed.
And thankfully, Judge Fox is the same judge that first decided it was unconstitutional to keep gays out of the foster program in the first place. A decision later affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court. "
spencer wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:48 PM:
" I also had to laugh at the comparison of gay marriage to a man marrying an animal.
That's a new one for me... "
That's a new one for me... "
nwa wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:34 AM:
" Having read the complaint, it is very weak. Only a judge wishing to rewrite law would stretch reason to argue that Due Process and 14th Amendment are being violated by Act I. I have never read such a weak complaint. I cannot believe that the ACLU didn't do a better job of presenting their case. On top of this, the ACLU won't have the Ninth Court of Appeals to play with. I can't wait to read the decision of the court one way or the other. I'm sure there will be more court cases to follow, one way or the other. "
UAfootball wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:26 AM:
" 91151 - Don't you understand that this law doesn't affect ONLY homosexuals but also good able bodied heterosexuals who should not be denied the right to foster or adopt. And by the way, anyone can still adopted in the state of Arkansas IF you really want to.
Simply, do what the Hollywood stars are doing and adopt from overseas and leave the poor kids in Arkansas in the hands of the State. Makes a whole lot of sense, doesn't it? "
Simply, do what the Hollywood stars are doing and adopt from overseas and leave the poor kids in Arkansas in the hands of the State. Makes a whole lot of sense, doesn't it? "
aran wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:05 AM:
" Ozarks--So you can't think critically, and independently about any issue--all your opinions are formed by the will of the people?? WOW!!! Almost every controversial issue in the history of this country began with a small minority trying to legislate change, look to the civil rights movement some 50 years ago. If you have to wait for the wagon to pass before you jump on, you already missed it bud. "
Not already registered?
swampman wrote on Dec 30, 2008 7:08 PM: